20. Wow you twisted that post so much

I'm surprised it doesn't look like a piece of licorice now that you're done.

First - haha on you're 'scientists being bribed' crap. That's not what I'm saying. To set up research that looks legit takes a lot of money. It's not just about bribing scientists (if that even happens and I don't think it does - directly) it's a whole system of deception. Set up a large 'research' study, maybe a whole research centre that is affiliated with a reputable university. Donate lots to that university. Then you need to sit on the board of major scientific research publishers. Then, when your study is done, you need a system of distribution for the 'results'. You do know that most of the 'medical breakthroughs' on the news are submitted by large corporations looking to get promotion for their particular 'discovery'? Same for scientific research. If you can agree that most news in the country is controlled by the right (as most aware dems know) then that particular 'research news' is usually slanted towards what those companies would like you to hear.

You say that this person came the conclusion that it was Monsanto based on nothing other than the results. I beg to differ - it's a pattern of behavior, this research didn't happen in a vacuum. Just the fact that the headline doesn't match with what the long term results indicates says more than knowing who are the real donors.

I see someone has already figured out who the front is. Quel surprise!